These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Crius] Jump Drive Isotope Consumption

First post First post First post
Author
Marketing Chairman Stalin
Space Marketing Department
#121 - 2014-04-29 14:42:10 UTC
Ammzi wrote:
Apollo Purvon wrote:
You expect highsec ice consumption to drop on the theory that people will downsize their towers, ignoring the idea that more people will drop towers because you're also removing standings requirements and giving bonuses to tower manufacturing. In order to offset this drop in Highsec consumption, you're increasing nullsec logistics costs. This is a bad fix based on a non-existent problem.


Welp. CCP just got out-smarted.

Dimitri Forgroth
Trespassers' Society
#122 - 2014-04-29 14:43:27 UTC
Apollo Purvon wrote:
You expect highsec ice consumption to drop on the theory that people will downsize their towers, ignoring the idea that more people will drop towers because you're also removing standings requirements and giving bonuses to tower manufacturing. In order to offset this drop in Highsec consumption, you're increasing nullsec logistics costs. This is a bad fix based on a non-existent problem.


Basically this. This is an easy to make change in the future if ice prices do start to drop from fewer POSes being run, but postcognition is significantly more reliable than precognition.
Current Habit
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#123 - 2014-04-29 14:43:42 UTC
Ammzi wrote:
Apollo Purvon wrote:
You expect highsec ice consumption to drop on the theory that people will downsize their towers, ignoring the idea that more people will drop towers because you're also removing standings requirements and giving bonuses to tower manufacturing. In order to offset this drop in Highsec consumption, you're increasing nullsec logistics costs. This is a bad fix based on a non-existent problem.


Welp. CCP just got out-smarted.



again
Ravcharas
Infinite Point
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#124 - 2014-04-29 14:44:22 UTC
If we believe that the consumption amount influences usage frequence, wouldn't it make more sense to decrease the amount so that more capitals jump more often? More capitals jumping around means more get caught. A docked capital never gets blown up.
Aareya
Backwater Redux
Tactical Narcotics Team
#125 - 2014-04-29 14:44:22 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Stimulate the isotope (and therefore ice) market to help cushion any drop in demand from players using smaller starbases after the science and industry slot changes.


It is often a dream of high sec corporations to place a POS in high sec. The standings requirements restrict these many new high sec corporations from doing so. The summer expansion will remove this obstacle allowing every new high sec corporation to erect their own high sec POS.

What happens if the influx of new POS towers offsets or exceeds the expected reduction in size of high sec POS towers? With an increased demand of isotopes (driven by an increase demand of fuel blocks), wouldn't this change further impact the isotope market?

Twitter:   @AareyaEVE

Needmore Longcat
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#126 - 2014-04-29 14:47:44 UTC
Oh. One other thing, that I find absolutely astonishing. You changed your mind literally 10 minutes into the thread, which raises a very important question:

Actually how much prior thought and planning has gone into this?

MissBolyai
ElitistOps
Snuffed Out
#127 - 2014-04-29 14:49:50 UTC
Ok, Fozzinator... I declare a truce. And I think it's time to be quasi-constructive to you.

You have a great history of making thoughtful and impactful game decisions (tech nerf, pirate ships etc etc). One of your forte's has always been the combination of your extensive game knowledge with your ability to see the big picture and the long term impacts of any proposed changes. You have also, historically, done a great job at explaining your thought process in the dev blogs of any of these changes.

Today's announcement just feels a little more whimsical than we've grown to expect from you. Instead of "I am changing X because of Y," you've given us "well, how about this?" I'm sure there are a lot of reasons behind your proposal that I (and the other 99% of the posters here) don't understand/haven't thought of... but just from my chair, it seems like you haven't either. And I only say that because you typically have laid a much stronger groundwork than you did here (as evidenced by the fact that you implemented a suggested change within the first 30 minutes of the thread being up). Not that the timing of Resgo's suggestion negates its validity, but I would contend that if you're taking the first suggestions that come in, you may not have thought it out very thoroughly.

Or, maybe you have a good idea of where you want to go, and you're a step ahead and using the community to help vet your idea... in which case, that's an impressive meta game.
Migui X'hyrrn
No More Dramas Only Llamas
No Good Deed Goes Unpunished
#128 - 2014-04-29 14:50:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Migui X'hyrrn
Needmore Longcat wrote:
Oh. One other thing, that I find absolutely astonishing. You changed your mind literally 10 minutes into the thread, which raises a very important question:

Actually how much prior thought and planning has gone into this?



I can imagine Fozzie and Rise eating together today and Rise laughing evily "You don't dare to post about..."

Thats the only way I can imagine this. Because two seconds of thoughts discard this as a good idea.
Cpt Ghost
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#129 - 2014-04-29 14:51:00 UTC
Didn't read a single argument in this thread explaining why doing JF runs should be more expensive..
Can someone enlighten me please, cause so far I just think it's ****.
In my eyes it looks like CCP continues to suck all the joy out of this game.
Evil
Lady Isabell
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#130 - 2014-04-29 14:51:18 UTC
Needmore Longcat wrote:
Oh. One other thing, that I find absolutely astonishing. You changed your mind literally 10 minutes into the thread, which raises a very important question:

Actually how much prior thought and planning has gone into this?




I'm sure they are wonder what this "thought and planning" you speak of is so here is what Wikipedia has to say about it:

Planning (also called forethought) is the process of thinking about and organizing the activities required to achieve a desired goal.

Planning involves the creation and maintenance of a plan. As such, planning is a fundamental property of intelligent behavior. This thought process is essential to the creation and refinement of a plan, or integration of it with other plans; that is, it combines forecasting of developments with the preparation of scenarios of how to react to them.

An important, albeit often ignored aspect of planning, is the relationship it holds with forecasting. Forecasting can be described as predicting what the future will look like, whereas planning predicts what the future should look like.[1] The counterpart to planning is spontaneous order.
Dirk MacGirk
STK Scientific
The Initiative.
#131 - 2014-04-29 14:53:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Dirk MacGirk
For all of you crowing that this will have any effect whatsoever on force projection, you're just wrong. Cost isn't an issue. Not for the groups you are worried about showing up on your doorstep with capitals. But it is a nice subsidy to the corn growers in the midwest, I mean, AFK ice bots in Empire.

Perhaps they should have seen what the effects actually become on isotope use related to starbases before creating this new social welfare program.

If this would have been part of a larger, more deeply conceived plan on limiting force projection, I could buy it. But for now, it's nothing more than a subsidy to people who already play the game AFK.
Zeus Maximo
Mentally Assured Destruction
The Pursuit of Happiness
#132 - 2014-04-29 14:53:22 UTC
I think Fozzie's board room meetings to discuss changes consists of him sitting in front of a mirror.

This one change just nerfed all of the bonus's you gave null sec industry.

"It is not possible either to trick or escape the mind of Zeus."

U-MAD Membership Recruitment

PoH Corporation Recruitment

Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#133 - 2014-04-29 14:53:24 UTC
So jumps/portals will require 50% more fuel, but bays will hold 3x more. 1.5/3 = .5. ***** about to get expensive, yo. But less refueling required.

Buy isotopes.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY

Calorn Marthor
Standard Fuel Company
#134 - 2014-04-29 14:53:38 UTC
Apollo Purvon wrote:
You expect highsec ice consumption to drop on the theory that people will downsize their towers, ignoring the idea that more people will drop towers because you're also removing standings requirements and giving bonuses to tower manufacturing. In order to offset this drop in Highsec consumption, you're increasing nullsec logistics costs. This is a bad fix based on a non-existent problem.


Hehe. Pretty much to the point.
I am making serious preparations for a demand spike in POS parts. Everyone and his mom will instantly want to drop a POS somewhere when this hits TQ.
In addition, Ytterbium tells us that POSes use 5% less materials on all manufacturing jobs.

The question ofc is: what happens in the long run? After the initial rush, how many POSes will be operated?
If manufacturing in a POS becomes mandatory to be competitive due to the material bonus, you will see a much larger number of smaller POSes.

You should rather get that "multiple lab/assembly benefit question" right then you would not need to worry about people downgrading POSes...
Berluth Luthian
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#135 - 2014-04-29 14:54:34 UTC
What if fuel cost was a little more logarithmically tied to distance jumped?

Boost all jump ranges by 10-25%
Reduce jump fuel volume by 50-75%
Scale jump fuel cost by balancing efficiency of distance so that...

Jumping about 25% of current ranges is actually about 10% cheaper than now.
Jumping about 50% of current range is about 10% more expensive than now.
Jumping 100% of current range is 100% more expensive than now.
Jumping 125% of current range is 250% more expensive than now.

The trade-off would be shorter cyno chains for maximum fuel efficiency or longer jumps for max speed and security?
Boogalo
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#136 - 2014-04-29 14:57:05 UTC
Meandering Milieu
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#137 - 2014-04-29 14:57:24 UTC
Posting in a stealth "nerf power projection" thread.

Power projection and hull tanking, Fozzie is on a roll and I like it.
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
#138 - 2014-04-29 14:58:26 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
Thread has been cleaned up. Please follow all forum rules when posting, and keep it on topic and civil. Thank you.

ISD Dorrim Barstorlode

Senior Lead

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

xXFreshnessXx
Segmentum Solar
#139 - 2014-04-29 15:25:59 UTC  |  Edited by: xXFreshnessXx
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hello everyone!

In the upcoming Summer release we are making a lot of changes that we expect will impact player behavior surrounding manufacturing, mining and starbase use. We see an opportunity here to make some adjustments to the way that Jump Drives consume their isotope fuel that will hit a few birds with one stone.

The goals of this change are:
  • Stimulate the isotope (and therefore ice) market to help cushion any drop in demand from players using smaller starbases after the science and industry slot changes.
  • Help encourage cost competitiveness for local resource gathering in nullsec.
  • Although we don't expect this change to significantly impact behavior around jump drive power projection, it should at least provide a small incentive change through higher costs for moving huge capital fleets often.

The plan for this release is to start with a 50% increase in the fuel cost of all jump drives and jump portals, and adjust further if necessary once we see the results. This change applies both the the base consumption of ship based jump drives, as well as the isotope consumption per kg of mass on all jump bridges and portals.

To compensate for the extra isotopes that ships will need to carry, the volume of all four isotopes will be reduced by 1/3, to 0.1m3. Thanks to Resgo for some excellent feedback.


For reference, this will increase the cost of running a max skilled Rhea from Jita to RIT-A7 (jump drive transit the whole way) from ~50m isk to ~75m isk.



FROZZIE, Hi, I'm a bit triggered here so bare with me and I'll try to resist the urge to sperg but please tell me.. us how this change is GOOD for all if not the majority of players?

This change will hurt the everyone and even more so anyone who is not in a powerbloc, or mega alliance. This is but a scratch to those big guys but it literally curb stomps the **** out of the smaller guys. I feel these changes will negatively affect an alliance like ours, not too mention the hundreds of other corps and alliances who are not in powerblocs or receiving sov/renter subsidies from their overlords.

The other question I have is why is this change being put forth in the first place, indy buff? capital nerf? tidi control? but really why? And do you think the positives IF ANY outweigh the negatives? ((Tinfoil alert:)) It seems the direction of the game is slowly moving in the direction to help the current powers that be to stay in positions. Am I playing Eve where you are part of the Rockafellas, certain players get to be in this elite group(CSM) and the rest of the players are all puppets and slaves with false hope of ever amounting to anything great in game INDEPENDENTLY?

No but really I have agreed and love the changes you've been doing all these years and even recently rise of Rise but as MissBolyai pointed out in post #127 this is a bit whimsical of you and it's a bit late for April fools.
Follow me on Twitter @FR3SH0PShttps://twitter.com/FR3SH0PS
Ammzi
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#140 - 2014-04-29 15:26:14 UTC
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode wrote:
Thread has been cleaned up. Please follow all forum rules when posting, and keep it on topic and civil. Thank you.


Thx, that was much needed.